Content deleted Content added
Benlisquare (talk | contribs) →"Fighterbomber is unreliable": addendum |
Benlisquare (talk | contribs) →"Fighterbomber is unreliable": wording |
||
Line 122:
:::First of all, back in February weren't you adamant that we needed to hear from both sides, just in case the Ukrainian claim was false? Now that Fighterbomber has said, and I quote,
{{tqb|There was no way to save the ship (the list was rapidly increasing, the ship was lying on the left side). From the moment the enemy drones were discovered and the start of the battle, until the ship was completely flooded, a little more than 40 minutes passed. The crew left the ship using life rafts, without loss of personnel, and evacuated all secret documentation and part of the secret equipment with weapons. The last 10th drone monitored the dying ship until the sinking, after which the 10th drone tried to attack the accompanying tug, but was destroyed by the group on board.}}
:::...is this not enough information from the horse's mouth to give us the Russian account of events? There's really no other way to mince words, they've stated themselves that the ship "could not be saved", are we supposed to not trust the Russian side of events now? This is a [[WP:BLUE|"grass is green"]] moment here; when a recollection of events states that ship compartments have flooded at sea and can't be saved, the ''obvious inference'' is that it has sunk, ships don't stay afloat for days on end after flooding. I really don't understand why you are so adamant against the article stating the obvious, given all of the information that has surfaced between February and now. And ''even if'' your concern regarding "social media" holds weight, then why
| |||